AV Ristorante is a recurring series by Brian Fitzpatrick.

Please note that the views of outside contributors do not reflect the official opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff.

As we all know – how could we have missed it! – the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Trump v. Slaughter just a week ago, on Monday, Dec. 8. That case involves the erstwhile commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, Rebecca Slaughter, and tees up the question whether so-called “independent” federal agencies violate the constitutionally mandated separation of powers. The case would have been near and dear to the heart of my old boss, Justice Antonin Scalia, who vehemently thought these agencies should be subject to the president’s control.

The Supreme Court on Monday morning agreed to take up the case of a Mississippi man who contends that he was sentenced to death in violation of the Constitution’s ban on racial discrimination in jury selection. Pitchford v. Cain is the only case from the justices’ Dec. 12 conference in which they’ve granted review so far. The court did not act on several high-profile petitions that it considered last Friday, including challenges to state laws banning assault rifles and large-capacity magazines.

In Dissent is a recurring series by Anastasia Boden on Supreme Court dissents that have shaped (or reshaped) our country.

On a cold January day in 2012, a senator walked into the U.S. Capitol, banged a gavel to open a Senate session, then banged it again – sending the Senate back into a break. The whole thing lasted less than a minute. Three days later, another senator did the same thing. Congress was on its holiday break, but to prevent President Barack Obama from using his constitutional power to fill vacancies during congressional recesses without its consent, the Senate was conducting short, pro forma sessions every three days.

Empirical SCOTUS is a recurring series by Adam Feldman that looks at Supreme Court data, primarily in the form of opinions and oral arguments, to provide insights into the justices’ decision making and what we can expect from the court in the future.

When Chief Justice Earl Warren was able to achieve unanimous agreement in Brown v. Board of Education, he demonstrated the Supreme Court’s capacity to speak with a single, authoritative voice on foundational constitutional questions. Today’s court appears to operate in a starkly different terrain. Multiple publications have characterized the Roberts court as the most polarized in generations, with recent decisions on abortion, affirmative action, and gun rights fracturing along predictable ideological fissures.

Using comprehensive data on the justices’ agreement rates from 1791 to 2025, we can now trace how justices form coalitions and when these drift apart. This analysis reveals not just whether justices agree, but the dramatic transformation in how much they agree – and disagree – across American constitutional history.

This morning, Friday, Dec. 12, the justices are gathering for their final regularly scheduled private conference of the year to discuss cases and vote on petitions for review. The petitions set to be considered – or reconsidered – address several significant topics, including the scope of Second Amendment protections, a unique response to climate change, and whether the government can seize a $95,000 plane over a six-pack of beer.

Here is a brief overview of five notable issues that are in front of the court at this week’s conference.